Posted on 06/28/2013 3:52:41 PM PDT by LonelyCon
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California.
The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
A spokesman for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had originally said it would takes the court at least 25 days to act after a Supreme Court ruling. Immediately afterward, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered his public health agency to advise the state's counties to "begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the 9th Circuit confirms the stay is lifted."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The Ninth Circuit was ordered by SCOTUS to lift the stay. They didn’t “make the final decision.” The stay the Ninth Circuit issued is a separate legal action from the case they wrongly accepted and then decided.
The headline a bit misleading. They just had to lift their stay after the SCOTUS ruling. It’s just a procedural technicality is all.
You are confusing the two cases. He wrote in the dissent in the DOMA case - that was the federal case. He sided with the majority in the California case - Prop 8 - that allowed gay Judge Walker’s ruling overturning the will of the people to go into effect.
So Scalia really is a turncoat. And here I though he was protecting the marriage amendment from Kennedy.
Pretty much.
And I am outraged by the initial Dist Ct. decision. I like the comment here of a “round square”
But having said that, I think the Prop system should be abolished. I hate it. It is mob rule by a bunch of low information voters who decide based the most effective commercial. Bad enough they do that for their Representatives but they should not be permitted to do that for laws.
I already spit on front of a pair of these clowns holding hands.
We just received word that the Ninth Circuit, without waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision to become final and depriving us of our right to ask for reconsideration, has rushed forward to order same-sex marriage licenses.This outrageous act of judicial tyranny tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption.
Homosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind. It isn’t happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right. It’s happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.
The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.
It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California.
-- Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel
So, in essence, the defense attorney was gagged and dragged from the courtroom, leaving the defendant defenseless.
The same way they did with Proposition 187. The will of the people means nothing anymore.
The equal protections clause in the California constitution is expressly based on the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
(See SEC. 7. (a))
However, there is glaring evidence in the federal Constitution that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1, had never intended for the equal protections clause to be applied the way that pro-gay California judges have applied it to Prop. 8.
More specifically, if the equal protections clauses of the federal and California state constitutions were intended to be understood the way that California judges have applied it to Prop. 8 then there would have been no need for the states to ratify the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments to the Constitution, these amendments establishing voting protections based on specific criteria.
In fact, noting that the 19th Amendment was ratified to prohibit federal and state governments from prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex, the Supreme Court having previously decided in the case of Minor v. Happersett that the states could prohibit citizens from voting on the basis of sex regardless of 14A's equal protections clause, legal majority California voters similarly prohibited certain kinds of marriage on the basis of sex when they approved Prop. 8.
So where the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of 14A versus the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments is concerned, what equal protections actually means is the following imo. Simply put, states can make laws which discriminate on the basis of criteria which is not expressly protected by the Constitution, as long as such laws are applied equally to everybody affected by an unprotected criterion.
Again, pro-gay activist California judges inappropriately based their application of the equal protections clauses in both federal and state constitutions on PC interpretations of these clauses imo.
I found it extremely ironic that the day after SCOTUS overturned California's Proposition 8, a record breaking, "life-threatening" heat wave occurred (and is still ongoing with the hottest days being Saturday and Sunday). God's hint?
Outstanding point.
Laws are written so as not to be redundant.
What I find incredible is that we have judges overturning an Amendment to the Constitution of the State of California - it’s right there in black and white, Sec. 7.5.
Where do they get the authority to do so?
Bye bye CA. Nice knowin’ ya. Born and raised in the Bay Area. Headin’ for AZ...
It only works for liberal issues.
Next comes persecution of Christians, jail time for pastors who preach the word, etc.
You know that is next. CA already wants to strip tax exempt status from Boy Scouts.
You are correct. I was confused because I don’t consider Scalia’s ruling on the Prop 8 case to actually be either in favor or against the issue of whether it’s Constitutional to either prohibit or require gay marriage.
Scalia’s opinion on the Prop 8 case was about standing, specifically about whether only the State had standing to sue, or whether the authors of propositions also have it. I understand the reasons Scalia and the others denied standing. To have allowed it would have violated the “stare decisis” principle.
As a matter of public policy, I think that the authors of propositions should have standing to sue if the State declines to defend their proposition against adverse court rulings. Calfifornia can and should fix that problem using a State Constitutional Amendment.
It means everything when they want it to.
We have to face it. These people are no good; we have literally nothing in common with them politically or culturally. Our world-views are mirror image; we disagree in toto. They are given over to evil. Separation is all that is left short of violence.
Where a court just forced them to recognize sodomite unions.
Seems like AZ is a fairly right-leaning, right-thinking state. We’ll see how it goes. CA’s getting ready to fall into the sea.
All checkpoints on the sodomite agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.